I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
(Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
available).
> I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
> time.
>
> /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
rather...

Re: longest without a reboot

On Jan 3, 1:49 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
> (Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
> GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
> KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
> ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
> because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
> available).

About the same time it takes me. I do alot of multitasking myself, but
mine hardly takes any memory, since most of mine is done through
command line.
>
> > I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
> > time.
>
> > /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok
>
> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
> pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
> rather...
>

I found that the best way of dealing with this kind of behaviour is to
be polite and kind in response. Otherwise we just give fuel to fire.
Plus, sometimes it may actually be someone who is a serious person. If
one isn't polite in that situation, it may come back to haunt you very
long. Internet trolls never forget, when it serves their purpose.

>> > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to resort
>> > to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first time. Don't
>> > ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.
>>
>> Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Shelton
>
> I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
> should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
> up on open office and came with the following tip.
>
> Tools menu, options
> Memory under OpenOffice.org
> Change:
> Undo
> Number of steps to 25
> Graphics cache
> Memory per object 2.0 MB
> Remove from memory after 00:05
> Cache for inserted objects
> Number of objects 15
> Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter
>
> I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
> time.
>
> /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

Thanks, but it didn't make any difference - but maybe because the
quickstarter thing doesn't seem to be launching. I dual boot this
machine with kubuntu 7.10 so I booted into that to see if made any
difference and the times were the same. The option for
the quickstarter is disabled on the kubuntu install so I couldn't
test it's effect on either system.

I have a hard time believing you have a cold start time of 3 seconds on
an equivalent machine.

>>> > > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
>>> > > about 20 seconds.
>>>
>>> > Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)
>>>
>>> OOo 2.3.1. What did I do to it? Nothing. I installed it from
>>> source:
>>>
>>> emerge -av openoffice
>>>
>>> Here are my CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf
>>> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
>>>
>>> > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to
>>> > resort to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first
>>> > time. Don't ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.
>>>
>>> Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Shelton
>>
>> I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
>> should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
>> up on open office and came with the following tip.
>>
>> Tools menu, options
>> Memory under OpenOffice.org
>> Change:
>> Undo
>> Number of steps to 25
>> Graphics cache
>> Memory per object 2.0 MB
>> Remove from memory after 00:05
>> Cache for inserted objects
>> Number of objects 15
>> Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter
>
> I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
> (Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
> GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
> KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
> ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
> because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
> available).
>
>> I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
>> time.
>>
>> /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok
>
> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
> pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
> rather...
>

You still haven't posted your times Roy... You make vauge statements
about it only taking a "few seconds", and "a little longer then 3
seconds", but you don't give an acutal time. Why?

--
Tom Shelton

Re: longest without a reboot

Roy Schestowitz espoused:
>
> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
> pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
> rather...
>

Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
killfile for yonks.

>How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
>starts up "off topic"?

It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.

People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
openoffice is extremely fast and capable.

The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the computer
is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
subsequent windows open within a second.

I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
you have a system that crashes constantly.

Re: longest without a reboot

____/ AZ Nomad on Friday 04 January 2008 01:49 : \____
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:39:33 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just
>>>> to pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified.
>>>> Suspicion rather...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
>>> killfile for yonks.
>>>
>
>
>>How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
>>starts up "off topic"?
>
> It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
> to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.
>
> People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
> openoffice is extremely fast and capable.
>
> The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the
> computer
> is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
> subsequent windows open within a second.
>
> I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
> you have a system that crashes constantly.

I agree. Talking about startup time is a case of diverting attention to
non-issues, thereby escaping the great capabilities of OOo, some of which
surpass MSO.

If Tom doesn't like Linux and Free software, he has subscribed to the wrong
newsgroup.

Re: longest without a reboot

Roy Schestowitz espoused:
> ____/ AZ Nomad on Friday 04 January 2008 01:49 : \____
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:39:33 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just
>>>>> to pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified.
>>>>> Suspicion rather...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
>>>> killfile for yonks.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
>>>starts up "off topic"?
>>
>> It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
>> to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.
>>
>> People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
>> openoffice is extremely fast and capable.
>>
>> The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the
>> computer
>> is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
>> subsequent windows open within a second.
>>
>> I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
>> you have a system that crashes constantly.
>
> I agree. Talking about startup time is a case of diverting attention to
> non-issues, thereby escaping the great capabilities of OOo, some of which
> surpass MSO.
>
> If Tom doesn't like Linux and Free software, he has subscribed to the wrong
> newsgroup.
>

.... which is why it's off-topic and anti-charter. He's been in my
killfile for ages for this behaviour.